Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN2 55
LANGUAGE
English 55
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 55 (some duplicates have been removed)
in prison for his opinions. someone else who also led to jail was britain's greatest investigative journalist if you have read king leopold's goes to will remember him as the man who exposed the brutalities of the king leopold congo and his term was extremely harsh and he died not long after words really as a result. a very brave man. war opponents like this were up against the unceasing verizon of propaganda. here is the u.s. army recruiting poster from the period, a typical of things you saw on both sides. a german poster, with god 14 and fatherland. a poster warning against for heaven's sake say potential german invasion of australia. some of the probe for propaganda has an edge to it. you would be letting down the when and if you did not fight. or perhaps you were all blimp evading your responsibility and worse yet if you refuse to fight maybe you were a feminist. there was a nasty edge to the patriotic fervor in the air. as i mentioned, there were more resistors in all the countries we were fighting, but for various reasons the sharpest conflict between those who thought the w
in today. these are officer cadets at britain's most exclusive private school drilling in 1915. now, one of the things about the wars that we have gotten accustomed to in this country in recent years, vietnam, iraq, and the stand is that they are fox mostly by the poor. they are are very very few among the dead and wounded in those three wars who have been sons or daughters off ceos, senators, members of congress, anything like that. it was the exact opposite and the first world war. the death toll actually fell proportionately higher on the upper classes. and the main reason for that was that it was customary for sons of the upper classes, sons of the aristocracy, to have military careers. and i think a major reason for this is that armies are not only there to fight wars against other countries. they are there to maintain order at home. the 19th century was a very tumultuous time in europe, so was the early 20th century. many of the european armies were used to break strikes or the british army you know, put down tenant farmer rebellions in ireland, and so therefore officer in the army
that because britain and germany were both anglo-saxon races, that they as aryans would not go to war with one another. it's an absurdity, needless to say, on so many levels. he, himself, had served in the trenches in the great war when they helped one another. but nonetheless, by the time the second world war broke out, there were only 46 operational u-boats against the united kingdom because he didn't believe he would ever have to actually fight the united kingdom. by the end of the war there were 463, most of them bottled up in the atlantic. but if he had started with as many as he finished with, he would have been able to strangle the united king kingdom. and when one looks at the plans to invade the united kingdom, many of which weren't agreed up until september 1940 when really they ought to have been put in place as soon as he came to power in january 1933, one appreciates how little he was expected to have to attack. there is the infamous list of 2,820 brick britons who were going to be shot on sight or at least when they were arrested by is the ss when the germans successfully invaded
concept and that they were always right and an essential key and was the idea because britain and germany were both races, they would not go to war. it's an absurdity on so many levels, but he himself served in the trenches in the great war when they helped one another, but nonetheless, when the second world war broke out, there were 46 operational u boats with the united kingdom. by the end of the war, there were 463, most bottled up in the baltic, but if he started the world war with as many boats as he finished it, he would have been able to strangle the united kingdom, and the clans to invade the united king doll, many of which were not agreed up until september 1940 when really they ought to have been put into place when they came into power in 1933. one appreciates how little he was expected to have to attack. there is the infamous list of 2,820 britains who would be shot on sight by the ss when the germans successfully invaded. in that list you see sigmund freud and huxley who came to live in america in 1936, and there were others of that kind. indeed, when rebecca west and nick ho
time after timed. i've witnessed it firsthand in great britain, places like sweden where people would never believe there are no go zones for police in these enclaves in europe and even a place like dearborn in america is developing into that but the hub, the center of activity in each of these cases is, yes, the mosque. >> host: all right. you mentioned that they're going up all over the country. one of the ones that you talk about is the islamic center of murfreesboro, tennessee. we've been fixated on the ground zero mosque in manhattan. large facilities like northern environmental. but this is on 52,000 square feet in a tiny suburb of nashville, all right? why? what -- what is the strategy there because you spend a lot of time talking about this in the book. and this -- you know, aide guy from the defense department when i was going to a briefing on this tell me, this is very much in keeping what mao used to call the war of position. you move through the countryside. you leave deposits of your belief and ideology and infrastructure and by the time you get to where you want to go, y
that country and keep britain and britain safe from another 9/11 or 7/7. thousands more including many civilians have risked their lives and hundreds have been injured fighting for the security of our nation. they were called to an international coalition involving 48 countries with a specific you and mandate working at the invitation of a democratically elected government. though there have been many difficult times we should be clear about what has been achieved. in 2009 my predecessor, the prime minister told this house that some three quarters of this serious terrorist plots against britain linked afghanistan and pakistan. we must always be on guard. i am advised this figure is significantly reduced. international forces have been bearing down on al qaeda and the taliban in pakistan and afghanistan. osama bin laden has been killed and al qaeda is significantly weakened. in afghanistan british and international forces have driven al qaeda from its bases and while it is too early to tell for certain initial evidence suggests we halted the momentum of the taliban insurgency in its hea
of great britain on his arm, and then the ambassador would come with the president's hostess on his arm, a wife if there was a wife. jefferson had the rule: he who is next to the door goes in first. this created a diplomatic flap because the ambassador of great britain was just outraged at this. c-span: again, you--you're writing about people who were born between 1776 and 1800. >> guest: yes. c-span: so the focus--the years that you're really focused of them being old enough to be involved, would be what? >> guest: well, i would say really the first three decades of the 19th century. c-span: 1800 to 1830? >> guest: mm-hmm. mm-hmm. i have material on the 1790s because it's a very tumultuous decade and it's important, and there are some of them who, by that time, are in their 20s. but, yes, most of the action. c-span: give us a profile on what the united states looked like in those 30 years: people, where they had come from, what their religion was. >> guest: well, to give a profile of a country that was as rambunctious as american society in those decades is going to be very hard. i can
foreign minister, prime minister of israel, and the deputy undersecretary of state for great britain signed a secret protocol providing that israeli troops would invade the sinai peninsula on october 29th. this was the plan. once the israelis advanced toward the canal zone britain and france would issue an ultimatum to israel and egypt to cease fighting and except anglo-french occupation of the canals on if, as expected, egypt rejected the ultimatum britain and france would begin bombardment of egypt on october 301st followed by a troop landings. remember, this was a secret. it was not in the newspapers to read what was in the newspapers that day was that the soviet union had sent troops into budapest, hungary, killing dozens of protesters. eisenhower knew nothing of the secret meeting in paris. that day intelligence advisory committee chaired by cia director allen dulles, the brother of john foster dulles, assumed that war was not imminent and postpone the for the revision of the intelligence estimate. the committee ignored an fbi report that an unnamed country was considering milit
is about britain's response to the beginning of the civil war. i understand in the early stages of conflict that britain was sympathetic, if not supported, to the confederacy. and i would imagine because of the importance, vital importance of the british economy of the 19th century. can you tell me when that attitude changed and how and why britain changed later on? >> yeah, i think, you know, when we talk about the british, again, it was a place and they were people as competent and divide as americans are, so there were many individual britain's -- their individual britons were in favor of the confederacy. i think particularly within the ruling elites in england, people felt challenged by this sort of upstart republic that crossed the waters, or challenged philosophically challenged economically in some ways. and they also did fear what would happen if these time exports from the southern states were interrupted. the rate great many britons who were strongly anti-slavery. of course, as we know britain had had its own strong abolitionist movement for many decades, really got off the ground
and britain decide that this is really shameful. we don't have any institutions to build defenses. we don't have any institutions to plan and run an operation. never again. so they met on the island. they came off with an agreement. when the european union was set up there always was a security pillar. it had been put aside so that they could focus on trees that affected finance and capital market and movement of people and bringing the continent closer together. but they decided to fire up the security pillar. they set up -- nato is run, by the way, by a board of directors , the north atlantic council. military committee, and then you have various other committees, but those are the key structures that run nato. and so the europeans set up a military committee, military staff. they set up a satellite center in brussels. all the sudden focus woke up in washington and said, hey, what are these europeans doing? of the going to take away what nato is doing? there are to be duplication? the u.s. with a uk set up some ground rules. no, this is all okay, but you can set up a permanent headquart
britain, read the declaration of independence. they say why they did it. i had no reason to doubt thomas jefferson. well, the south carolinians of 1860, um, did the same thing. and if you go through it, it's kind of boring, but, you know, it says that south carolina's now resumed her separate and equal place among the nations. and then they start talking about the fugitive slave law. they say, you know, we signed this compact, the constitution, and the constitution -- and this is very embarrassing -- but in the fourth article of the constitution it says no person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof escaping into another shall in consequence of any law be discharged from such service which is a way of saying if slaves run away, you have to give them back. that's in the constitution. so that was a bargain that the southern states had made at the constitutional convention which, obviously, they took very seriously. now, the fact that i'm arguing about what they did doesn't mean i agree with them, i want to make that very clear. but it seems like no one is really spe
was always right. and an essential key, as with the idea that because britain and germany were both anglo-saxon races, that they would not go to work with one another. it's an absurdity needless to say until may levels, but basically because he himself had served in the trenches in the great war when they had fought one another. nonetheless, by the time to second world war broke out their only 46 operational u-boats against the united kingdom because he didn't believe he would ever ask have to fight the united kingdom by the end of the war through 463, most of them bottled up in the baltic. but if you start the second world war with as many u-boats as the fish would've been able to have strangled the united kingdom. and when one looks at the plans to invade the united kingdom, many of which were not even a great into september 1940, when really they should have been put in place since he came to power in january 1933. one appreciates how little he was expecting to have to attack. there is the infamous -- the list of 2820 britons who are going to be shot on sight, or at least when they wer
of israel and patrick dean the deputy undersecretary of state for great britain had a secret protocol providing that israeli troops would invade the sinai peninsula on october 29th. this was the plan. once the israelis advanced towards the suez canal zone britain and france would issue an ultimatum to egypt and israel to accept the canal zone. if as expected israel rejected the ultimatum. followed by troop landing. but remember this was secret. it was not in the newspapers. what was in the newspapers that day was that the soviet union had sent troops into budapest, hungary, killing dozens of protesters. eisenhower knew nothing of the secret meeting in paris. that day the intelligence advisory committee chaired by cia director allen dulles, that's the brother of john forceder dulles and postponed further revision of the intelligence. the committee ignored an fbi report that an unnamed country was considering military action against nasr. on monday october 29th, eisenhower campaigning in florida was handed a note as he boarded his plane for richmond, virginia. the note said that the isr
are securing schooling and we'll be able to do it at 2.5% of the cost. this is a good investment for britain, for british taxpayers to make sure we reduce inequality in our world. >> can the prime minister explain whether he thinks that the cost of his nhs reforms set to rise even further we now know with the revelation that a new super quango is going to be created. it might be partly responsible putting at risk services at the popular school in my constituency? >> what we've actually seen since this government has taken office is more than 2,000 more doctors but 4,000 fewer managers. and we are cutting bureaucracy by a third. i know they don't like to hear it. but if we'd followed their plans and cut nhs spending, you'd see the number of doctors, the number of nurses, the number of operations going down. and just this morning, we see the figures for the number of diagnostic tests in the u.k. going up. that's because of the investment going in under this government. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister be aware of the news this morning that portugal's debt has been downgraded
getting over. so the war is over and france and britain decide that this is shameful. we don't have many institutions to build or plan and run in the operation. never again. they met to on an island in france and came up with an agreement with the european union was set up there was a security pillar but the was put aside to focus on treaties with the capital markets and movement of people and bringing the continent closer together. nato is run by the border directors and a military committee then various other committees but those are the key structures so the europeans said it up a military committee and a satellite center and all of a sudden the folks say what are these europeans doing? will they take away what nato is doing? will there be duplication? si u.s. at our direction also the u.k. setup ground rules to say this is okay but you cannot set up a permanent headquarters. a few launched a campaign you need to use said that the commander and they came to an agreement to work those out. that only lasted for one campaign. over the last 10 years europeans have spent 27 deployments fro
's when i stumbled upon william e. dodd. >> britain's parliament has gone into its summer recess. the bbc parliament channel be kept the last several months in the house of commons in british politics in this one-hour record review program. some of the issues covered include the news corp. phone hacking scandal come in the royal wedding in president obama says it. >> hello and welcome to the special edition of the record review, when we look after an eventful summer term at parliament, he turns anything distinguished guests, rigorous questioning and much in the way of political drama. >> for the grandson of a kenyan who served as a cook and the british army to stand before you as president of the united states. >> this is a shocking mass. in fact, it's a scandal. >> have you ever received payment for any news? >> absolutely not. i can't believe he suggested that. >> the fact we do not have democratic legitimacy undermines our capacity to act as a check and balance. >> why disney know about these arguments? the house of commons is on this bill tonight. >> you can ask about strike because t
lies to each other. they worked hand in hand to drag the united states and britain into that war. >> host: did you write this book before wikileaks started? >> yes. i began a long time ago 2003. i got a call from a man who was with "the new york times" and writing a piece for the weekend review section of the times on international wind. we had never met but he said for some reason when he thought of the subject line name popped into his head. >> host: why is that? >> guest: i am not sure. a i am somebody who is likely to believe and states ally a lot. i thought i would find evidence of leaders lying all the time but i was shocked and that was not the case that lies are told clearly i used to go around the country talking about the subject until audiences i could not find much evidence of lying it was how the most cynical people were said you cannot believe that. you're not looking hard enough. there just isn't that much evidence and he thought my subjects on the thought and didn't know literature and his idea is we have a fruitful conversation. then a few months later somebody a
down in terms of african-americans saying that obama's election creates more britain these for african-americans. it's gone down a bit since this election and certainly in my own survey it's not as high as 70%. it's closer to a round of 30 or 40% who are saying that it's going to help them, but i also the fact of the presidency, even if he loses in 2012 will go away. in the reassessment that has begun to take place at least in some minds won't stop, whether or not he went. there would be a lot disappointed people, again, fall colors if if he loses. i don't think it's going to change the fundamental way people are beginning to look at what is possible in the political arena. is ther >> is there a real divide in african-american thought or intellectual immediate? i ask is based on what cornelln west recently dead. he said obama is a black mascott of wall street oligarchs in at black puppet of the cards and now he has become head of the american killing machine and the sound of it. >> cornell is obviously batfishs ics website added a number of things having to do with obama. i haven't spo
. britain couple tom's cabin to try to prevent that. unfortunately in effect it made slavery more entrenched because it made this out very defensive about slavery, even as it turned the north toward antislavery. so it had this effect. it startled her. some became more better. petitions to politicians. she was mentioned in political speeches. it was really a growing division so finally win don brown comes along, even though she had created it gentle on "tom she calls john brown in 1869 the greatest american that ever lived. like a former pacifist, henry david thoreau who rick -- who wrote his entire essay in his earlier years which influences more nitpicking and gondi. but henry david thoreau is greater than any of the founding fathers. there is no man who has ever lived to has done more for the honor of the american name. she knew about his violence in kansas and is violence. but by that time she knew the very sad truth that only violence was going to end slavery. it took the death of more than 620,000 americans to end slavery. that is how deeply entrenched slavery had become in america. sad
of cheap lit which are. -- literature. the plays, of course, when stowe landed in this britain, in liver pool in 1853 to visit britain, there were ten versions of "uncle tom's cabin" on stage in london on the day she landed. >> right. >> imagine that. so i think it's a fascinating, um, summary -- and i don't mean to simplify this -- summary of the impact of that book in so many ways. >> yeah. well, i can't really think of another novel, um, and i love so many novels, and i teach so many novels, and i love them all. but i can't think of another one that had the impact of "uncle tom's cabin." you know, where does one begin? it's now translated into over 70 languages, and every year even now new editions and new languages keep coming out. t just an incredible -- it's just an incredible international phenomenon. again, where do you begin? in russia there were 57 editions published there. well, first it was banned in russia because it was considered a subversive novel. but then in 1867 it was published and then 57 -- and it was lenin's favorite novel. and it directly influenced the emancipati
will welcome it. alongside the important questions of behavior in britain's newsroom, the police, and the relationship between the politicians and press, there are a number of additional issues that need consideration. on the issue of media regulations, does he agree with me our instincts should continue to be for self-regulation? does he further agree that it needs to be prove that self-regulation can be made to work? and can he comment on the work going on privacy issues and whether he sees that as part of the investigation? can i welcome the decision to make cross media ownership part of the inquiry, does he agree with me more abuses of power are more likely to happen when there are high concentrations of power? can the inquiry be legislated for in the governments forthcoming communications act? can i suggest to him it would be wise to bring forward the act in the current date of 2015 which is when i believe it is planned for. finally on the protototo -- prol about transparency, back to the last general election. he will publish all of the details -- all of the details of the
the things that britain should be doing in the world, whether that is trading with countries like nigeria or south africa or leading the aid effort in the horn of africa where today we're told it's not a catastrophe or a trout and a famine and i'm proud britain is not being deconflicted on the great role it's doing in trying to feed hungry people. >> mr. speaker, yesterday these evidence sessions rupert murdoch was asked about his frequent meetings with the prime minister and his government to which he replied, i wish they would leave me alone. well, did prime minister and his government would reply without request? [laughter] >> one of the outcomes of all of this there will be a lot of people leaving alone. >> mr. speaker, in the operation motorman investigation, the information commissioner found 861 personal, 861 personal information transactions which were positively identified as coming from 89 mirror group newspaper journalists. can the prime minister confirm that the inquiry that he has announced will be able to look into the unlawful practices going on at mirror group newspapers?
occurred in britain. it was no accident happened in europe. there is a regulator assigned to aig have not audited their british operations, so we have no idea what is going on in britain. and the 300 man operation for 300 employee operation in britain brought them into total chaos. now, let's for instance take bear stearns and laymen, two of the most famous examples. they had regulators on site while lehman was transferring money offshore a day before the reports of measuring and the money -- they were bringing identity before they report. they were taking it back -- barring it enlisting in this capital the day after their quarterly reports, moving it off short. you had regulators on site should have picked that up. if you have 20 regulators in an institution and there were between 12 and 20 regulators inside that institution when they were violating the rule, what good does it do to bring claymore regulators and if they violated the rules that exist had they not done that. we are now withers said prime lending that those are unregulated institutions. all your institutions to get arou
, phone hacking by news of the world reporters dominated the news in britain. immediately following prime minister's questions, the prime minister will make a statement about government inquiries into the scandal. just before question times, members are finishing up other legislative business. >> to the prime minister, mr. hames. number one, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i had meeting this morning, in addition to the duties in the house, i shall have further such meetings today. >> mr. speaker, secretly deleting voicemails left for a teenager. buying the silence of the public figures that could incriminate your business, and publishing the details of a disabilitied child who happens to have a famous father. i ask the prime minister are any of these the acts of a fit and proper person? >> here. >> my honorable friends makes an extremely powerful point in a powerful way. i think we have to be clear about what is happening here. there is a fire storm, if you like that, that is engulfing parts of the media, parts of the police, and indeed our political system's ability
doctrine of hate. one secretary said we have to figure out where to draw the line. in britain, we decided that we will not use religion to draw this line. we will say the terrorists on one side and everybody else on the other side. there is an effort t .. have to avoid that. host: catherine herridge of fox news. how do you find the balance between protecting civil liberties and second-generation americans, and doing the investigative work you are doing? one of the nuances you are talking about is looking at -- muslims, who were bo >> just in my work i follow wherever the facts lead becauset i cover a 10-year. i some of them are converts to islam. there is no question. i would argue that the islam they are practicing is not the islam of most muslim americans. iis is as i call it a digital g hyde or an ideology of hate. i can tell you that when you looked, what you see is someone who leads a very double life. one of the things i try to bring out in the book is that in manya respects this man is a fraud, whether it was defrauding man w $20,000 to go to school, pretending that he couldn't rem
civilians. we have news evidence which says that's wrong. good evening is britain's biggest and most important police force merely inexcept or corrupt or possibly both? you can forgive people for wondering. public confidence in the police is said to be rocking after two high-profile resignation. the met police chief admitting he took a free stay at a health spa, a botched initial investigation into phone-hacking and tonight the revelation that a former senior executive at "the news of the world" was working for the met at the same time. how far wan we trust the yard and the people who run it. here is richard watson. >> reporters would meet some of the met's most senior officers in this wine bar a stone's throw from east scotland yard. they were were told on drinking materials. something which made other police officers deeply uncomfortable. but the latest he revelations in this fast who have moving story appear to show relationships went even deeper than this. they will always want to serving police officers for information. iters part of the job some police though it is all about de
and the elections held just outside mexico city. we were there watching to see. britain still too many votes. some, but not too many. we were there. at the end of the day we start counting. and the local prd folks, when we showed them how many votes it was dealing we have proof here that they're cheating. [speaking in native tongue] we said that's the point. that's over here for. that's why we came here for. obviously we left it at that. they reflected upon this later, 20 years later or never. they were right in we were wrong. why? because the next day charlie in that would go back to mexico city. never be able to really go and take care. he had bigger fish to fry logically enough. they would have to go on living right there. there would have to go on living, co hat have a tin, coexisting. with this notion in mexico that you don't want to confront, you don't want to pick a fight. you can't walk away from a fight. once you walk into a fight you have to stick with it all the way. and so better not to have it then have it and then have to back away. i go through these different traits. the reality of
, britain never did this. we have this dominance. it may not be an empire in the usual sense of the term, but it is an extraordinary kind of dominance. and yet we're not quite sure what we should be doing. and that, i think, came out in the libyan business, and it's our hesitation in the middle east. we're not sure that this is good for us. we'll have to see. at the same time, we can't stand in the way of people wanting to be democratic. so we've had an extraordinary history, and we're live anything a very -- live anything a very, a very difficult time or a significant time too. >> let's go back and tie this to the very beginning. if we're talking about the soviet union, of course, in the case of russia they ip herted a large -- inherited a large land maas. they'd had some 800 years of history. they'd had czars that had ruled the world. in our founding, and you write about this very powerfully, and you talk about the audacity of the young americans and this little land mass at the edge of the world. and now they thought they were going to remake the world. how did that come about? what g
of northwestern put it this way even as the tory party's are uncertain of the anglican church in great britain has been described as the tory party of the pulpit, so the legal professoriate in most good law schools can be described as the democratic party at the lectern. that's been changed and i mentioned it's been changing at harvard, and indeed most schools these days will house a libertarian or conservative outspoken law professor they may hesitate to have more than one for the fear they will breed -- [laughter] but they do tend to have one these days and so things are changing. this is not new. this ideological slant goes back a good long way, and if you wanted to you could trace it back about a century ago who said that it should be conceived as applied social engineering. isn't that a wonderful phrase which means the law schools might think of themselves as schools of engineering but it began picking up momentum during and after the new deal. various law professors joined fdr's administration even more notably people in fdr's administration went over to the wall school after they left and b
and britain and france, and in a couple of those instances, there's parallels. obama is a whole other conversation than what we're having today, but this -- eisenhower offers a real template of governing from the middle. obama unlike the reasons that drew eisenhower to it is in that position today, and so i think there's real lessons to learn from eisenhower record in terms of what he can achieve with a very polarized political environment. >> mr. newton, i heard for a number of years that the complete phrase of the military industrial complex was preceded by a word congress, that congress, the military industrial complex. is that true? >> the phrase as usually reppedderred is military industrial congressional complex. >> oh. >> that phrase appears in none of the drafts of the speech, but the speech writers working on the speech, one of them said they considered it at one point, considered including it in the draft. it's hard to know from the document how seriously they considered it because it never made it into a draft. i will say this. the rest of the speech would have been at odds
. in fact they worked hand-in-hand to drag the united states and britain into the war. >> did you write the book between -- before the wikileaks that was so? >> i began on the book a long time ago in fact in 2003 and what happened is i got a call from a man named serge in "the new york times" who was writing a piece for the review section of the times on the international alliance and he and i had never met but he said for some reason when he thought about the subject my name popped into his head. >> why do you think that was? >> i'm not sure, probably i am a well-known realist and someone who believes in the politics likely to expect the state's law a a lot and by the way when i first start of the researchers said i would find evidence of research laying all the time and i was actually quite shocked that is not the case here told quite rarely and i used to go around the country talking about the subject, this is before the book was published and i would tell the audience is i can't find much evidence of slowing. it was amazing how cynical people were. they said we can't believe that. y
is restricted to britain. right across the world you got a problem that police forces are accountable to government and yet independent from them. and we must never compromise operational independence and this goes to some of the questions i was asked earlier. we musn't move to a system where you have politicians stepping in to say, why haven't you rerun this investigation. why haven't you arrested that person? we ought to think for a moment where that would lead. but i think it does make it all the more important that police leadership is strong and they are called to account when they fail. and that's why we're introducing directly elected police and crime commissioners to bring that kind of accountability to policing. i give way to the secretary chairman. >> i'm grateful to my right honorable friend and i'm grateful to the point he just made does he know not agree that he needs to be clear beyond a doubt, that it should not begin or indeed should begin. >> you're absolutely right. we must maintain operational independence. the point about the police commissioners is calling the pol
? if that is the case, i will welcome it. alongside the important questions of behavior in britain's newsroom, the police, and the relationship between the politicians and press, there are a number of additional issues that need consideration. on the issue of media regulations, does he agree with me our instincts should continue to be for self-regulation? does he further agree that it needs to be prove that self-regulation can be made to work? and can he comment on the work going on privacy issues and whether he sees that as part of the investigation? can i welcome the decision to make cross media ownership part of the inquiry, does he agree with me more abuses of power are more likely to happen when there are high concentrations of power? can the inquiry be legislated for in the governments forthcoming communications act? can i suggest to him it would be wise to bring forward the act in the current date of 2015 which is when i believe it is planned for. finally on the protototo -- prol about transparency, back to the last general election. he will publish all of the details -- all of the det
of collapse, and it will not collapse. it is very much like britain and rome. if you look at the realms beaches in the senate, just before the empire, use the absolute predictions of catastrophe. that happened to. >> host: okay, so 10 years so now we'll come back and have this conversation. we will see how it worked out. >> guest: it will be the same conversation. >> host: thank you so much. it's been a great conversation today. >> guest: i enjoyed it. >> that was "after words," booktv signature program in which authors of latest nonfiction books are in the by journalists, public policymakers, legislators and others familiar with the material. "after words" airs every weekend on booktv at 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch "after words" online. go to booktv.org and click on "after words" in the booktv series on the upper right side of the page. >> up next on booktv, investigative reporter annie jacobsen presents the history of the military base, area 51, which is located in the nevada desert. the author use of recently declassified doc
era of cheap literature. the plays, of course, once they landed in britain and liverpool in 1893, there were ten versions in london on the day she landed. imagine that. so i think it's a fascinating summary, and i don't mean to simplify the summary of that book in so many ways. >> yeah. well, i can't really think of another novel and i love so many novels and teach so many novels and love them all, but i can't think of another that had the impact of uncle tom's cabin. you know, where does one begin? it's now translated into over 70 languages, and every year even now new additions and -- new editions and new languages keep coming out. it's an up credible international phenomena. again, where do you begin? in russia, there's 57 editions published there. first, it was banned in russia because it was considered a subversive novel, but then in 1857 it was lennon's favorite novel and it laid behind the russian revolution, it was one of the influences of the russian revolution. anyway, as i was saying, the play went everywhere. in america, there's so many different versions of the play.
disorder and killed someone and was locked in an insane asylum. in britain. and from that insane asylum he gave james murray tens of thousands of illustrative quotations for the oxford english dictionary. the brits consider him a star of the oed. that star of the oed is actually an american reject because simon winchester in his book, and winchester's is a breed. the brits have written history about that and my point is the americans were damn good in the 19th century and we shouldn't forget it. that winchester didn't realize that w.c. minor worked on webster's 1864 addition again i look at the correspondents, and he was the one weak link. ever says this is a fantastic dictionary. minor was supposed to do a natural history definition and they were really lousy. so the future star of the oed couldn't cut it as an american lexicographer, and i just want to highlight just how impressive that dictionary is and that we should be very proud of our tradition of the american lexicography. all right, i will stop there and take questions. [inaudible] >> all right. when we you appear on c-span? >> i'
as the tory party, or rather, i'm sorry, the anglican church in great britain has been described as the tory party at the pulpit, so the legal in most good law schools can be described as a democratic party at the lectern. now, that has been changed and i mentioned it's been changed at harvard. and, indeed, most schools that have in respect these days whether libertarian or a conservative professor that they may hesitate to more than one for fear that they will breed -- [laughter] but they do tend to have one. and so things aren't changing. this ideological slant goes back a good long ways. and if you wanted to come you could trace it back to roscoe pont about a century ago who said that law should be conceived as a five social engineering, isn't that a wonderful phrase, which means that the law schools might think of themselves as schools of engineering. but it really began picking up momentum during and after the new deal. various law professors joined fdr's administration. even more notably, people in fdr's administration went over to law schools after they left and became professors. and
extraordinary. britain had never did this. we have a dominance like the empire that is extraordinarily kind of dominance, and yet we are not quite sure what we should be doing and that i think is came out in devotee and business and its our hesitation in the middle east we are not sure that this is good for us. we have to see. at the same time we can't stand in the way of people wanting to be space. so, we have had an extraordinary history and in a very difficult time, significant time, too. >> let's go back and tie this to the very beginning. if we are talking about the soviet union, of course in the case of russia they've inherited a large land mass and had some 800 years of history, they have tsar's that have ruled the world. in our funding coming and you write about this very powerful the and you talk about the audacity of the young americans in this little hoot land mass at the end of the world, and somehow they thought they were going to remake the world. how did that come about? >> when you think about it this is a country of two or 3 million people, 3,000 from the civilization on th
and i came here with great respect for all of you, the parliament and people of britain you represent. this is the most humble day of my career. and all that has happened i know that we needed to be here today. james and i would like to see how sorry we are for what has happened especially with regard to people's crime. >> our company has 52,000, i fled for 57 years and i've made my share of mistakes many countries and hard-working journalists. i learned that nearly 200 newspapers come for different sizes and countless stories of the families of the world at no time do i remember being as second as when the family had to endure which i think his last. nor do i have recall things as angry as when i was told that the news of the world could have compounded their distress. i want to thank keefer graciously giving me the opportunity to apologize in person. i would like all the victims of the phone hacking to know how completely and deeply sorry i am. apologizing cannot take place with his happened but still, i want them to know my regret of the horrible invasions' of their lives. i unders
and what to say say at this juncture about britain? >> i can tell. i will have to ask a question return. what did we do wrong to deser it? >> no, i'm asking >> any country gets the media it will put up with. and having worked not just in britain, but in new york and  sydney, there are three quite different types of media. "the new york post" is wild in american terms, but not british terms. in australia, i was censured fo carrying a photograph on page three as it happens in the daily telegraph in sydney of mary poppins coming of the actors -- lie andrews with the headli mary popout. so you -- i have long been a believer -- let's talk about th british public because they think is that we hear, we sit i judgment and we have our middle cut lawyers and we feel that we like responsible, respect globa newspapers. and any man or woman wa foreign news, they want politics, they want him dead analysis. what they want is celebrity journalism and i
, the anglican church in great britain has been described as the tory party at the pulpit. so, the legal professoriate in most good law schools can be described as the democratic party at the lectern. now, that has been changing. i'm interested that it has been changing at harvard. indeed, most schools that have any self-respect these days will have a libertarian or conservative outspoken law professor. they may hesitate to have more than one for fear that they will breed, but they do tend to have one these days. and so things are changing. this is not new. this ideological fact goes back a good, long way. if you wanted to you could trace it back to a century ago. what should be conceived as applied social engineering. isn't that a wonderful phrase? that means law schools might think of themselves as schools of engineering. but it really began picking up momentum during and after the new deal. various law professors joined fdr administration. even more notably people in fdr's administration went over to law schools after they left and became professors. and the stage was set in 1943 for
saw the conflict with britain, what was the sugar act? it was something, it was a law passed to favor the british sugar planters, this wealthy group of men who mostly live in london and hobnob with members of parliament. what's the stamp act? the an act to pass taxes from the rich -- namely the british -- to the poor which you always are when you're about to be taxed, but the poor, midling colonist. and the tea act, what is it? is it's favoritism on behalf of parliament for the shareholders of the east india tea company. so there's the government being oppressive, the parliament, and i think it's important to understand what the revolution was about for many ordinary patriots was this effort to set up governments of their own, that their problem was that their governments lacked the power to protect the people and promote their prosperity. and that to understand the movement solely as anti-government is to understand it really halfway and partly from the point of view of the most well-to-do who are always the ones who can do without less government and not from the point of view of th
. but internationally particularly. i note that in great britain, 30% of the assets in their financial system are held by insurance companies, not by financial institutions or banks, rather, but 15% in the united states. so both looking within the united states and looking internationally, your views are going to be extremely important and once again, i would hope that we'd move quickly to confirm you and get you on the fsoc. thank you for your service. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank all of you for being here and being willing to serve today the way you offered yourself and i thank your families for being here. i know it's -- you certainly will not receive many tough questions with all of these family members in the audience. so we're glad they're here and we're glad to see all of them. i'll start with you, mr. vice chairman, soon to be chairman, when dodd-frank was being debated and discussed, the previous chairman did an outstanding job of convincing the majority of members of the senate and the house to turn you into a super entity with orderly liquidation abilities. as we we
. no country has ever dominated the world as we do. this is just extraordinary. rome never did this. britain never do this. we have a stone this. it may not be an empire in the usual sense of aware but it is an extraordinary kind of dominance and yet we are not quite sure what we should be doing. and that i think came out in the libyan business and it is our hesitation in the middle east. we are not sure that this is good for us. we will have to see. at the same time we can't stand in the way of people wanting to be democratic. so we have had an extraordinary history and we are living in a very, a very difficult time or a significant time. >> let's go back and tie this to the very beginning. if we are talking about the soviet union, as far as the case of russia they inherited a large landmass and it had some 800 years of history. they had czars who ruled the world. in our founding and you write about this very powerfully and it is a fascinating discussion when you talk about the audacity of young americans in this little landmass at the edge of the world and somehow they thought they were go
. today cellphone hacking scandal in great britain consumer privacy as part of the national consciousness. we have a unique opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of millions of americans and the look forward to welcome chairman walton and members of the committees on both challenges. privacy laws are stricter than in the u.s.. how could have gone so far out of hand? whether american consumers are as vulnerable as celebrities in london. i hope chairman genachowski will address this issue as we continue to gather facts. this morning we began an important and some say long overdue debate. how do we have congress and americans balance the need -- >> madam chair, is the microphone on? >> it is. you need to get used to a female chairman. >> how we balance the need to remain innovative with the need to remain privacy. information on sophisticated ways. sometimes the collection and use of this information is extremely beneficial and at times it is not. i am somewhat skeptical of both industry and government. i don't believe industry is doing enough to protect american consumers while
evidence that says it is wrong. >> host: good evening is britain's biggest and most police force incompetent or corrupt or both? public confidence in the police is rocking after two high-profile resignations and he admits he took some day o working for the mad at the same time reporters if they were only on unthinking terms of made other officers deeply uncomfortable but the. but always it did tangs have lower it is about judgment and but here they're used to be regular meetings between news of the world journalist and stephen sin and john yates to discuss the stories of nine told the relationship was incredibly close. >> of former commissioner met with the executive 18 times in four years but tonight it seems it was much closer than this. >> is there any element of the relationship between the police and the news of the world? that stop them from pursuing the hacking? >> the man in 2009 who decided not to open an after reviewing 11,000 pages of evidence commander pressure two mou resign in today was threatened with suspension so he jumped. >> we are truly accountable. those who
here in the united states and internationally in particular. i note that in great britain for 30% of the assets in the financial system are held by insurance companies, not by financial institutions in the united states, so goes looking within the united states and internationally your view is to be extremely important and once again with quickly to come from you and get you on the outside. >> thank you for your service. >> senator corker. >> thank you mr. chairman and all of you for being here today and being willing to serve the way that you have offered yourselves and thank your family for being here. i know you certainly will not receive many tough questions with all these family members in the audience. so we are glad they are here and we are glad to see all of them. i will start with you, mr. vice chairman, soon-to-be chairman. when dodd-frank was being debated and discussed, the previous chairman did an outstanding job of convincing the majority of the members of the senate and house to turn you into a separate entity with orderly liquidation of devotees topeka devotees. m
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 55 (some duplicates have been removed)